Why in War Games/RTS, certain units are "use(-)less"

48 replies [Last post]

Sat, 11/17/2018 - 20:16

X3M

Offline

Joined: 10/28/2013

Just something to read. That is all. No questions from me, except if you want to know more.

***

You see in a lot of games that units are called over powered. Or imbalanced. Or even useless, obsolete.
When you check their statistics, you can only think, "how is this not right?". The doctrine of balancing has been followed, the statistics clearly show this.

I like to think of bar's now.
One end of the bar; units are over powered.
The other end of the bar; units are useless.
But the fact remains that over powered units can only exist when useless units exist.
So to get rid of over powered units. Simply get rid of the useless units. Right?

Or what about finding the most optimal unit for the job at hand?

So, for what reason are certain units useless?
I learned that most designers follow a basic formula for balance. Later on they further increase balance of the game by playing it and adjusting the unit designs.
Those games that lack this dedication, are often imbalanced later on and regarded as bad.

But perhaps there can be a step in between.
If designers ask themselves this question:
"What kind of combat is the unit going to face any way?"
Then we can take a look at which designs are the most optimal. And how much the designs compare in score.

This way too, an overpowered unit can remain in its role. But be "fairly" tweaked into a somewhat weaker variant. Since the other units are somewhat less optimal for the game as well.

***

I consider 4 situations where enemy incoming fire is taking place. That also asks for a certain design of units. To make matters worse, certain combat mechanics are required to be in the game.

- Spotting the weakness;
In some games, you need to find a weakness in the enemy army or base. Mostly hit and run units are used to deal with these weaknesses. But it is also possible that these units have only this purpose. It is for that same reason that they are considered useless, if the weakness isn't present.
The rarest designs: Probably because they are the weakest as well. And the fact remains that this tactic is also very rare in war-games.

- Having to face Focus/Sniping;
Here you fight an enemy, that kills your units 1 by 1. Even if they are the heaviest of tanks. If they die one by one, they are being sniped. I am not talking about a player who probably made the wrong choice. But a situation that can even happen with equal units. But it is also possible that you are dealing with a slow progress game.

- Being able to do Micro;
Here you fight the enemy. But this time, your units can survive, can retreat, can join the battle later again. Complete retreat means being hunt down in this case. This Micro is of course only possible if plenty of units are present in the army.

- Chaos;
Here you have, no control, over the combat, whatsoever.

***

I have named 4 different combat situations. And the influence of these situations can have a big impact on the most optimal unit designs.

Most games are a good mixture of these 4. But certain combat situations might only occur at certain moments in the game. This is where "early, mid and late game units" comes from.

Other games have a messed up resource management compared to what they first where intended to. And some combat situation are removed from the game by this new game play.

The "Spotting the weakness" is one of combat situations that is removed first from the game by changes to the game mechanics as a whole. This has a huge impact on which units are useful/useless.
But I have seen the other way around as well. By removing for example a proper resource management, not much coverage is present. Players either have small compact armies now. Or the base isn't covered at all.
RPS effects can also be very decisive in this regard.

***

I have found out that math can give us a good view on the 4 situations. It goes all the way back to units that only do damage and are present in a certain amount.

The only factors that have influence on the comparison are:
- Damage.
- Number of units, which I make depending on the total costs of the design by the first basic formula.
- How fast that number of units can decline in the game.
- For one occasion, the health/damage ratio.
- For one occasion, how much time is there left?

There aren't much math fans here. And I don't know if "following the doctrine on balance" makes any sense to most. So I try to explain what happens with the armies, instead of putting it into formula's.

- Spotting the weakness;
No matter how you look at it. As long as the attacking units serve their purpose and don't die. The design with the highest damage is the best. It turns out that having 1 unit for the same cost and armor, does the maximum damage. After all, "how much time is there left?"

- Having to face Focus/Sniping;
The units die one by one. There is some optimal point were the number of units and damage output create the most total damage. Obviously, 1 unit with all that damage is not the best design. Having 2 units with moderate damage is already better. Since one of the 2 units will, in a sense, do twice as much damage.

- Being able to do Micro;
The whole squad will do damage, until all units are damage to a point where they are being "sniped". This is depending on how much health compares to the damage in the game. 1:1 means that the units get sniped. 2:1 means a 50-50 deal. And 3:1 or more for health means that it will look more and more like a chaos combat.

- Chaos;
The whole squad will do damage, until all units die as if they are the same squad from "spotting the weakness". The strength here lies within the number of units.

***

With math, I could show HOW I apply scores to the unit designs.
The best scores show that these are the best designs for the given situation.

It could be completely with formula's. But using a set of examples is also an option.
If any one likes to know the math examples. And which way, please let me know.

Cheers,

X3M

Sun, 11/18/2018 - 00:34

questccg

Offline

Joined: 04/16/2011

A little about "balance"

Personally, I'm am speaking based on my own *interest* (which are primarily card games), I think one restriction that gets imposed as a FORCED "balance" is some kind of "Resource" System. It could be for example like "Hearthstone" a static mana that grows each round or it could be something more complicated like Gold, Gas and Wood like in an RTS like "Warcraft".

I just wanted to "touch" on this... because as you know "balance" is a relative thing... If we just figuratively "explore" a single +1 Mana per turn, this introduces some Deck Construction challenges in two different ways.

1. You need to think about doing Damage EARLY, MID-RANGE and END of the game IF you expect to win.

2. This is an interesting challenge to "balance", because EARLY cards might not appear in the intended order. For example what if your hand of five (5) cards only had END of game cards! You'd be sort of screwed because you don't have enough Mana to play and use those cards...

3. Do you want END of game cards then??? Because even if they are STRONG, them occurring in an out-of-order fashion means certainly that you will be "Mana Screwed". And your opponent will certainly take advantage and do direct damage to the player.

This is in a pure TCG (Trading Card Game) where the amount of cards and therefore units MATTER for each card introduced. Why? Because unlike an RTS, you don't have as MANY units. You are limited by your deck size.

So while an RTS allows resources to be collected, the limit of units is 100% based on what resources you have. This sort of "balancing" is different because if you SAVE on resources, you can ADAPT to the configuration of the enemy. Like if you deal with a Sniper, you can build a Flying Machine to take them out from the air. So each combat situation is tailored to the opposing army. And what matters in the end is RESOURCES. If you lose a battle and spend very little resources, you can build up another platoon more specialized to the opponent's army.

I don't think units are "useless", you just need to tailor your platoon to better the opponent's army. Hopefully the opponent doesn't change his game strategy from one attack to another, because then you might get wiped out TWICE in a row... And have a formidable army hell-bent on destroying your base.

But in terms of Computer AI, most AI rely on resources and when they run out... So does their effectiveness in combat! You'll find that the enemy might be strong at the beginning of the battle ... but as time goes by. You may be able to cut-off supply of resources. And on some levels this is much easier to do.

Getting back to the TGC with a limited deck, this means that one strategy is to hamper Mana (like a -1 Mana penalty card called "Mana Surge"). This effectively can give you an advantage. But it's computable: if it's turn 5, you should have 5 Mana. But you've been penalized and therefore you only have 4 Mana. That's a 20% loss. Not so insignificant.

I've already explained why END game cards are "dangerous" and betting the farm on those cards, even IF they are powerful, might make it smarter to have a weaker army of several cards and deal instances of damage rather than one powerful BLOW.

Definitely two (2) conclusions to consider:

1. Cutting off resources is one way to win faster.

2. Varying your armies can make it tougher to defeat you as a player. And creates an inherent "balance".

3. You may not want to rely on END game tactics ... because early and mid-range might be more reliable.

4. Only when you have a high level of resources can you not concern yourself with END game units. Like that Warship or Zeppelin which cost a lot to build and is relatively hard to defeat which can sail the skies and be free of ground units which are now effectively useless because you've upped the type of army required to defeat the Warship or Zeppelin...

And so I think it's the OPPOSITE of "balance" in RTS games which wins you the battle. But having varying armies helps too ... to keep the opponent guessing at what you might attack with next.

But I still think "cutting off resources" is the pre-cursor to an early end of game in RTS.

Just some additional thoughts (on resources - because I think they matter in most games, sometimes more than you expect).

Cheers!

Note #1: Just wanted to add that on some levels, the AI is restricted to how "powerful" the units you can build meaning that if the player builds up to have stronger units, then he/she is more likely to win and defeat the AI player (because the AI side may not have sufficient counters to win at the END game or towards the end...)

Note #2: And so my conclusion is that with FINITE resources the amount of balance doesn't really matter. I think it's the OPPOSITE to balance that actually wins the battle. And have Army #1 with mostly Marines sends out a signal "Send Tanks and you win". But if Army #2 is Warplanes, those "Tanks" you thought you'd win with... because you were expecting Marines... Is a bit of a shocker!

Note #3: Also as you run out of resources, so does the effective potency of your armies gets directly affected too. You may not be able to build that Warship or Zeppelin because you don't have enough Gas. The point being is that your "useless" units aren't at all useless when BOTH sides have exhausted most of their resources.

This is in the RTS scenario. I didn't discuss Wargames because I know very little about those games and they are not games that interest me. They seem too complicated with too many rules even if some aim for realism.

Sun, 11/18/2018 - 08:20

X3M

Offline

Joined: 10/28/2013

You are spot on with those resources.

They do indeed influence a lot on balance of the game. I only mentioned them briefly because it is hard to see for people that resources can make players choose unit A or B.
Card games suffer just as much from this challenge than RTS or War games.

I have some examples in this:

1 - Dune 2000 game play.
This fine game has the perfect RPS for the intended use of only 1 or 2 harvesters. Just like the previous 2 C&C games, namely C&C and Red Alert. There, even 1 harvester can win you the day with ease. These games rely a lot on "Spotting the weakness".
But when going online, you see 12 harvesters per player. And there are only 3 units present. The best unit of each production facility. Just to make sure you push out as many units as possible. The battle's are eventually completely chaotic. And the winner is decided by the one who has most control in this chaos.

2 - My board game.
I tested to see when my heavy infantry (6 points each) would beat the lighter infantry (just 1 point), while there is build up of forces. I adjusted the resources for the tests. And the goal for the factions was to rule forever.
It was back in the old days that I didn't use the "bonus" rule, but allowed a permanent focus rule for fairness. So there was imbalance between small and big, just like in the oldest RTS games. "Sniping" took place, if you will.
Every round, there was first combat, then placement.

I got the results here (which is more math now):
Resources: 1/round
Ends up with the heavy infantry winning.
I thought, it was safely to assume that more income would also win them the world. I thought.
The second heavy infantry arrived when there are 3 light infantry present. So I thought by halving the resources, the light infantry might reach 6. But that is wrong. They got to 3 because they too where reborn.

Resources: 0,5/round
The light infantry get defeated now. But from nothingness, they also manage to get rid of the heavy infantry. Eventually, the heavy infantry take the world once more.

Resources: 2/round
Perfect balance. The light infantry are always present too. But their population never exceeds that of 6. If the resource pools are limited. This is the only game where the light infantry win.
If the light infantry where to wait one round for having 8 infantry for the first assault. Then the same infinite balance would be achieved.
Even if the light infantry wait for a longer time.

Resources: 3/round
The fight is hard. But slowly but certain, the heavy infantry get the upper hand and then their growth explodes to almost a steady 1 per 2 rounds.

I wondered if there was a situation where the light infantry also could grow like that. I searched close to the 2/round. But 2/round is the most optimal in this case.

Is there a case where both sides share the world in a never ending world war? The answer might surprise you, but no. The heavy infantry see moments where they slightly have the upper hand. And can do some extra damage there. Slowly but certain, the light infantry will miss their extra damage. And eventually, their population drops to 0.

2b - My board game WITH the bonus rule.
The bonus rule came to life since many players pitted the so called equal units to each other. This means that 6 light infantry should be equal to 1 light tank. Actually, the same as above example, but then at a much slower speed. The bonus rule is a simple +50% damage per weapon, linked to the difference in army size.
Only when the army drops to below 67% in size, the damage too will start to drop. This is for both sides present.

I wondered if the light infantry truly had better chances. They did not get their growth because of the bonus rule. But they do gained more situations where a stable population remained present. All close to the 2 resources per round. How wide this balance is on the resource/round bar, I never tested it. But I was happy to find that 1 resource/round also creates balance for the light infantry upper hand now.

Next post about "no resources"?
After all, this post is more about immediate refill of the forces on the battle field.

Sun, 11/18/2018 - 11:06

Angrycyborggames

Offline

Joined: 04/02/2018

I don’t have much to add,

I don’t have much to add, except that I am also designing a (quite casual) strategy “war” game and this is a topic very dear to me.

I think the best examples in the digital world is the original Starcraft/broodwar, but also Starcraft 2 to a lesser extent. I don’t know of a tabletop equivalent that nails the feeling of “everything is overpowered” so well.

Almost every unit in Starcraft is (almost) obscenely gamechanging. Medics for example make marines exponentially harder to deal with. Stimpak makes marines insane mid/late game. Siege tanks are obscenely strong and difficult to deal with. Mutas have unprecedented map control when they hit the map. Lurkers hold chokes and strangle the map until very specific counters come out. Reavers are bonkers. High Templar can easily trade 10-20x their cost if not more. Etc, etc. It goes on!

I think cards / units / tablespace is at a premium with tabletop games and these concepts from the digital world can be even more effective. I don’t think there is design space in most games for anything less. If every unit and card has a significant impact, then choices are way more interesting, and the game’s story is much better.

I think designers tend to worry about balance too much. I think two broken things smashing in to each other makes better drama.

Sun, 11/18/2018 - 19:08

X3M

Offline

Joined: 10/28/2013

Every little thing helps

Angrycyborggames wrote:

I think designers tend to worry about balance too much.

I feel that this is indeed true for RTS games. just design the game. Get it to multi-player. And start adjusting where you feel it is needed as designer.

The problem with board games is that if one of them resembles RTS in almost every aspect. Then it comes clear that once the game is out, changes are almost impossible to apply. Then there is this, "obsolete" part of the game. The designer paid money to make it. The players bought the game. But both sides might feel like it was a waste of money. It would shut down relatively fast in selling and thus creating more. I think it is sensitive to unbalance.

Unless players can get certain aspects online for free. Like the [latest edition of Unit Statistic Cards]

Better to get some math done beforehand.
Also a lot of testing. Really a lot.

Angrycyborggames wrote:

I think two broken things smashing in to each other makes better drama.

I don't think I understand this. Do you mean that both players have some units to waste away? Just for the fun of it?

Sun, 11/18/2018 - 20:28

questccg

Offline

Joined: 04/16/2011

I think what he means...

X3M wrote:

Angrycyborggames wrote:

I think two broken things smashing in to each other makes better drama.

I don't think I understand this. Do you mean that both players have some units to waste away? Just for the fun of it?

No I think what he means is to battle with "broken/unbalanced" units as seen in other games which creates it's own "balance"... His example was "StarCraft" or "StarCraft 2"!

Those games are about "one-up-manship" not balance. Like Cyborg said the units are all unbalanced and can be effective battle tools. And that was what I was trying to explain in my previous comment. The battles are normally not balanced, but you can ALWAYS do one better and it's like bringing a Gun to a Knife fight...

Sun, 11/18/2018 - 23:06

Angrycyborggames

Offline

Joined: 04/02/2018

questccg wrote:X3M

questccg wrote:

No I think what he means is to battle with "broken/unbalanced" units as seen in other games which creates it's own "balance"... His example was "StarCraft" or "StarCraft 2"!

Yeah, this is my preferred type of balance — asymmetrical and with tug-of-war type advantages. I like factions and units to feel stronger or weaker at different points, and rewarding the player for taking advantage of those timings.

Mon, 11/19/2018 - 07:00

X3M

Offline

Joined: 10/28/2013

I see now.

But that is exactly as how I described "Spotting the weakness".
Players need a lot of skill to control these units. But when they do, the damage is massive.
I link "Spotting the weakness" to the skills of a player. But also to a sharp RPS.

Maybe I should adjust the words "rare" and such. Since Starcraft has many more of these units. But then again, it is for so far, only Blizzard games that have plenty of 'specialists by occasions' per game.
Which seems interesting since Starcraft is also considered to be one of the best RTS games out there. The best balance as well.

Other RTS games have some as well. But seeing as how I have played more then 20 different RTS games. It started to look rare in my eyes.

X3M wrote:

This describes the Templar a lot, doesn't it?

I don't consider asymmetrical and RPS to be imbalances. I consider them to be tools to bring variation and balance. I think it is time to show some numbers to let you see what I mean.

***

When I look at a game simplified to have no mechanical RPS, only natural ones.
Only damage and health. We get a list of factors.

X3M wrote:

From those factors, I can create a list of designs that are balanced by at least my own doctrine.

For this list, I am using my own board game rules. Only the damages matter and the number of units that may be build. I have taken the health so that the average unit is roughly the square root middle between the lowest and highest damage. The rule here is that they all cost the same when you have the maximum amount of units. So they do differentiate in prize and number. On a bar from meat to support, I am touching even the extremes.

X3M wrote:

- 10 units, each does 0,2 damage
- 9 units, each does 1 damage
- 8 units, each does 2 damage
- 7 units, each does 3,28571 damage
- 6 units, each does 5 damage
- 5 units, each does 7,4 damage
- 4 units, each does 11 damage
- 3 units, each does 17 damage
- 2 units, each does 29 damage
- 1 unit, it does 65 damage

And we are going to pit these designs against the 4 situations that they might encounter in battle.

X3M wrote:

- Spotting the weakness
- Having to face Focus/Sniping
- Being able to do Micro
- Chaos

I can explain how I get to the scores. But that is math. I will simply post the scores that I got.
The highest score of 100% is the best design for that given situation. Of course, some other factors might be considered.

X3M wrote:

Spotting the weakness
Is a simple fact of multiplying the damage with the number of units.
10 scores 3,08
9 scores 13,8
8 scores 24,6
7 scores 35,4
6 scores 46,2
5 scores 56,9
4 scores 67,7
3 scores 78,5
2 scores 89,2
1 scores 100

Here that one unit is obviously the best. However, if you are going to snipe an opponent which has only 29 health, designs can be done so that you pay half the price to get the job done more efficiently. So this list has a catch. And is very depending on the game mechanics. Also, these are the same scores for a suicide mission. Which is often the case in some other RTS that I have seen so far.

X3M wrote:

Having to face Focus/Sniping
Most retro RTS games follow this principle. Players had plenty of time to focus their fire on the right targets. Thus the units die one by one. Here I can simply multiply the damage with the triangular number of units.
10 scores 9,91
9 scores 40,5
8 scores 64,9
7 scores 82,9
6 scores 94,6
5 scores 100
4 scores 99,1
3 scores 91,9
2 scores 78,4
1 scores 58,6

In a long run game, where only these fights take place. A difference of at least 10% is considered to be imbalance. But designers have to put in some effort to get to that imbalance. Some succeeded in that, sadly enough. :) It also looks like our little specialist is almost half that of a standard most optimal army.
The most optimal ones are 6 to 3 units, with 5 being the best.

X3M wrote:

Being able to do Micro
This time it is the damage multiplied by the square number of units. However, the last hit point(s) on each is considered to be of triangular effect since there is sniping then.
10 scores 10,8
9 scores 43,8
8 scores 69,2
7 scores 87,0
6 scores 97,3
5 scores 100
4 scores 95,1
3 scores 82,7
2 scores 62,7
1 scores 35,1

6 to 4 units are most optimal, with 5 being the best again.
To get a more accurate score, the health/damage ratio needs to be observed. My game has 3/1. This means that if you have 3 health for every damage present, you have 2 time frames of squared numbers and 1 time frame of triangular.
RTS games in general have 6-8/1 as ratio. Rare cases even 12.

X3M wrote:

Being able to do Micro, including health/damage ratio
10 scores 10,6
9 scores 43,0
8 scores 68,2
7 scores 86,1
6 scores 96,7
5 scores 100
4 scores 96,0
3 scores 84,8
2 scores 66,3
1 scores 40,5

As you can see, it doesn't matter much in the big picture. However, the numbers can change drastically when you are still building up. But other game effects like a bomb that already killed let's say 3 units, which is roughly dividing by the square root of 2. Also changes the total scores.
If you know that these things can happen, you can include them in testing the scores.
Skill too, is a factor. It is simply a matter of, what do you allow players to do?

X3M wrote:

Being able to do Micro, including health/damage ratio, including the death of 3
10 scores 18,3
9 scores 67,4
8 scores 94,2
7 scores 100
6 scores 87,0
5 scores 59,0
4 scores 23,9
3 scores 0
2 scores 0
1 scores 0

Only the groups of 8 and 7 units are worthwhile in this case. The whole list can change depending on what kind of super weapons you allow in the game. If there is a case where a 3x3 squad gets destroyed. That one last unit can still do something. Not that it matters though, but I have had only once in my life time a winning match by having one of these.

X3M wrote:

Chaos (these scores might not be right)
Is tricky to understand and be precise in. What happens is that the whole group gets damaged at the same time. And then dies as one. But it also includes a mixture range of first strike kills, focus, etc. I can't put a finger on it yet. That is why it is called chaos. The attack move in RTS games resemble this a lot.
But it looks like having the number of units to the power of 3, times their damage. It worked for me, so I might be on to something.
10 scores 17,8
9 scores 64,7
8 scores 90,9
7 scores 100
6 scores 95,8
5 scores 82,1
4 scores 62,5
3 scores 40,7
2 scores 20,6
1 scores 5,77

7 Units, is the winner here. But even the group of 8 units still does decent damage.

***

Remember the 10% margin that I mentioned? The percentage that shows "imbalance" of a game? As you can see, the types of battles are of great influence on the balance of a game. If you are removing some possibilities of battles, by having ridiculous resources for example. You shift the balance a lot.
Not only resources, but the map layout, multiple resources per unit, "take that" situations etc. are all of great influence.

So math doesn't help me here much, does it?
It is fun to do. But in the end.
TEST THE GAME

***

What about the big losers?
The one with 0,2 and 1 damage?

Well, they don't do right in RTS games. These are the "useless" units that I mentioned. All the others have a chance of being useful.
In board games, this is a different matter.

I for one, allow these units to take the hit and protect a support unit. The mean/support combo now beats the average/average combo.
In RTS this is only possible if the support has some decent range to stay out of combat. I say that Warzone2100 got this one right. But RA has the V2 launcher, which is decent too if it doesn't waste the rocket on dry land.

Thu, 11/22/2018 - 07:01

X3M

Offline

Joined: 10/28/2013

Walls are "useless"

X3M wrote:

What about the big losers?
The one with 0,2 and 1 damage?

Well, they don't do right in RTS games. These are the "useless" units that I mentioned. All the others have a chance of being useful.
In board games, this is a different matter.

Walls always have a special attribute to make them work in RTS games. The ones who do it right have the walls, block movement (naturally), vision (attribute) and/or projectiles (attribute).

The 0,2 and 1 damage units fall in this category as well when it comes to combat. I always picture a mobile wall joining the team in the assault. But how on earth is it going to pull its weight without having it dead weight?

In RTS games, the support units are targeted first. As said before, decent range is key here. But in board games this is a bit harder, nah, actually easier to achieve. You would be needing the "You, shall, not, pass!" mechanic. Meaning that there is no way to get close enough to the ranged support units in order to finish it off first. There is something blocking the way of movement.

The other way around, walls and meat units. They could have the function of protecting the middle man. Short range works best on these units.
Meat units with long range. Well, I can only picture the sniper or something annoying for the fun of it. It works as a secondary choice. It is funny to watch the enemy getting pissed off at ya. Try it. :)

In RTS games, walls and meat units can't pull their weights well. Especially when you give them slow speed and long range. If you design a RTS. Make it so that units are a bit clumsy in movement and walls are big enough so that they can seal off even open terrain.

Also, make sure that choke points are of great use to the size of the army that you have in mind. This will have the effect that the meat units in front will collide first, but will not let any one pass. I know of only 1 game so far that truly makes use of this.

It comes in handy to make the mobile wall a bit faster than the rest in RTS games. So that they naturally move in the front. For board games this is not needed. Same speed; parallel movement.

***

Attributes that can be used

In RTS games, walls carry attributes like blocked vision and/or blocking projectiles. I have not seen units do this yet. If any one of you knows of a game that can block projectiles, not by insufficient range, but actually by blocking them. Let me know??

In board games. I have once again not seen this.
What I use is only blocking projectiles. But not by through the units. This was a bit too complicated.
Terrain blocks projectiles. But units on the spot can hide behind each other.

A couple of walls, and your infantry with rocket launchers are fine for a while. Move them 1 region backwards. And they are sitting ducks.

Maybe I will change my mechanics as well (it never felt right, all the things that I tried). Having the damage being divided among several terrains. Even terrains that partly block the projectiles. Which is more natural then simply cutting it by half for a 10 deep forest. Trying to find the right mechanic will leave for a lot of imbalance. With units, this is not a problem. But with terrain, I see a lot of games where they struggle with this. Often just saying that even a forest blocks vision 100%.

Sat, 11/24/2018 - 21:54

larienna

Offline

Joined: 07/28/2008

I did not read the whole

I did not read the whole thread, but like explained in a "Extra Credits" video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EitZRLt2G3w

And as people tried to explain to me when I declared that many units in the Star Craft board game were useless:

Apparently, weaker useless units are to be used by expert players so that when used in a specific situation with specific combination of units, it can actually be more powerful than just using the easy strong unit.

While the easy strong unit is there for the beginner players. Still I have my doubts for the star craft board game, that such planning and combinations could actually be more efficient.

I guess it's doable, but it should be a pain to balance.

Sun, 11/25/2018 - 16:51

#10

X3M

Offline

Joined: 10/28/2013

You are right about small against big.

What I talked about so far was a steady amount of health. But the damage was adjusted so that you could compare 1 to 10 units. And at least see that meat(or wall) and support units by themselves could be useful indeed for one of the 4 situations.

If both health and damage are adjusted in such a way that you would create fodder and a giant. The effects for the 4 situations would all show the same result. The giant wins every time in practical situations. This is because the theoratical situation is impossible to get.

And the practical situation is either "Having to face Focus/Sniping" or "Being able to do Micro".
In theory, the percentages for fodder are 55 and 85 (3:1 ratio) for these 2 situations. So yeah, the fodder is really in trouble.
Using either type of unit size for "hitting a weak spot" works 100 percent.
Chaos isn't even an practise here.

This is important to know if you continue designing with goals in mind. If you want to have useful smaller units, have them as goal "hitting a weak spot". That is your primary concern.

***

So, what can we do about the fodder units?
I think everything that I mention now is used in RTS games. It would be easy to do the same for board games.

Reasons that fodder could be more useful:

Fodder effect
Incoming cannon fire is "reduced" in worth:
- Overkill on 1 target.
- Accuracy on a smaller target.
- Mechanical RPS.

Bug effect
Mobility is increased for the smaller units:
- Small pathways.
- Surrounding capabilities. Best used with melee.
- RPS by terrain.

One purpose effect
- Cheaper rush attacks. Often a one-time gamble.
- Support fodder. Low health, high damage. Specialist and Suicide units fall in this category. Your primary concern!

Modify stats
- I know, this is what most designers do. But if you have no other option. This is IT. I have seen it in KKnD and any Starcraft game, done right.

***

What should a designer avoid?
- Splash Damage. I can talk on ages on why this attribute is one of the worst to game balances. Doesn't take away the fun factor though, keep that in mind. But yeah, only add this attribute if fodder units can actually avoid its effect when facing splash.
- Instant last tier. Big units open up in later tiers. If those tiers happen in the early game, you get the problems to balance sooner. Make sure the game has time to make early tier units needed.

Sun, 11/25/2018 - 23:11

#11

larienna

Offline

Joined: 07/28/2008

I can give you some random

I can give you some random thought form the experience I had with starcraft the board game.

Late units can be a problem when they arrive too late. You don't have a chance to use them and players might not want to pursue that goal. Or simply focus on a good middle units.

If units are deployed fast, waiting at most at 66% of game progress for late units can be OK. In starcraft, deployment was very slow, so 50% game progress would be better.

Players who are behind migth never see their late units. Which could be a problem since it could create a snowballing effect for the winning player.

In starcraft, there was also the issue with assist units that where not all that strong and was very complex to use. Or if you did successfully use them, you could do it once or twice per game.

To give you some example with starcraft : I usually loved playing protoss.

- Zealot: Starting unit, you are stuck with it. Still a good starting unit.
- Dragoon: Can acquire them early and are pretty versatile
- High Templar: Hard to use efficiently. Very slow to deploy archons. You might be able to pull in 1 or 2 psionic storm per game at most, or 1 or 2 archon per game.
- Dark Templar: Ok, combat unit. Not worth upgrading to ...
- Dark Archon: Yes, they have mind control, but assist units are very hard to make them efficient. Especially when targetting ennemy.
- Corsair: Totally useless units. Only an obstacle to ...
- Reaver: Best unit in the game in my point of view, but ground only.
- Scout: Very good versatile unit.
- Arbiter: Again an assist unit with little interesting abilities. Only an obstacle to get ...
- Carriers: which are much less inferior to reavers. Easier to focus on scout and stop there. Their wekness is mainly due to how the combat are resolved.

So in the games I player I normally tried to get:

Zealot -> Dragoon -> Maybe Dark Templar or High Templar
Corsair -> Reaver
Scout

And ignored all other units. This is one of the reason I traded the game. Yes you have various options of units, but many of them are not very good or are very hard to take advantage. The awkward combat resolution system combined with combat cards also did not help. Units might have been more balanced if using a simple axis and allies system for example.

Mon, 11/26/2018 - 00:59

#12

questccg

Offline

Joined: 04/16/2011

I'd like to ADD some thoughts from...

My current WIP: Monster Keep.

From the "generic" gamer's Point-Of-View (POV), buying into the game is relatively inexpensive and allows for sufficient cards to be made available for two (2) players (in a Player-vs-Player mode). Inexpensive because it's probably going to cost $15 USD (or $20 CAD). I feel this is a reasonable price point and covers the artwork for the game... It's very do-able. So it is affordable and allows player to battle each other.

What has any of this got to do with the Topic... Please be patient.

So the game allows each player to play with a Micro Deck of 15 cards. How you build your deck is your decision and off-line deck construction is available for gamers who want to invest a bit more into the game. How much? Well that depends... For sure it's not going to be like $150 USD for a Magic: the Gathering box with 36 packs. But if you want to buy 6 or 8 packs ... well that would be $45 to $60 USD. Maybe a bit pricier... but you're investing a bit into the game because you want to EXTEND your interests in further exploring the construction capabilities.

With only a 15 card Micro Deck comes the inherent decision of WHAT or HOW are you going to build your deck. And this is exactly the relevance to the topic in question: early-mid game monsters vs. late-end game monsters.

Investing in strong mid game monsters might be a better construction decision than investing in late-end game monsters. Obviously the late-end game monsters are usually more "mightier" and can deal more damage. But they require more mana and restrict how many monster can be used in the later stages of a game (per turn).

The strong mid game monsters lead to an interesting strategic fact: they can last longer, allow more combos and perhaps remain in play longer than their late-end game monsters (because of the fact that late-end game monsters require more mana which is only available towards the end of the game).

And therefore that creates an interesting paradox: how to balance your deck(?) Of course knowing that you start the game with 5 Random cards in your hand and that you will draw 1 extra card per turn (total 15 cards in 10 rounds), means that you obviously need to have early-mid game monsters sooner rather than later to deal EARLY damage. Or the opposite can be true too: how to protect yourself in the beginning.

The "format" of a booster is rather simple:

4 Common, 3 Uncommon, 2 Rare, 1 Mythic Monsters and 5 (Random) Spells.

Monsters are categorized and sorted into the proper categories.

The other innovative idea is the "Spell" cards. There are five (5) RANDOM Spells per booster. You get whatever you luck out with...

This means that each booster comes with five (5) Random Spells. In addition to 10 categorized monsters.

Getting back to the Topic... Do you want to wait for stronger, more powerful monsters which will only last for 1 to 2 rounds or would you rather have monsters which can last 6 to 8 round??? Because part of the game is your Micro Deck and having a way to mitigate a poor initial hand... Having more early-mid game monsters is one such strategy to HELP poor initial hands! Also having those cards from 3 to 4 times more rounds makes you seriously wonder: is it smarter to have more options available to you (like a Control Deck) or should you just focus on more power (like an Agro Deck)???

Since the game is still in DESIGN, I have not yet had the chance to pit these two types of decks against each other to see which Micro Deck would be superior in a two (2) player match-up. Since this is a four (4) player arena game, that means that in theory one player may buy 4 booster, one for each player and enjoy that extended four (4) player battle.

I still have to figure out HOW to encourage new players to become interested in cards that have not been "looted" by the purchasing player (because he may just want to buy 4 boosters to build the stronger deck and leave the opponents with no cards that are relevant to an arching strategy of another deck...)

Obviously I still have things to think about. But this game does make for an interesting "specimen" of a game that requires players to figure out their best Micro Deck strategy and HOW they want to play the game versus their opponents.

Cheers!

Mon, 11/26/2018 - 14:46

#13

X3M

Offline

Joined: 10/28/2013

I feel the pain without playing the game

larienna wrote:

A lot of things about Starcraft the board game.

But I can relate to it so much!

I think that the designer of Starcraft the board game tried to get as most as possible from the original game, into the board game.

Players begin with 11 units for just one faction!
Even I let new players use only 2 different units to begin with. Sure we can surpass these 11, but only after many, many games.

Perhaps, tracking all those different units also makes some "useless" because they are not even worth the hassle to make their part useful. Or better said, they are not worth the hassle to be explored, known to the player.

With A&A, you have 6(?) units. But each has a specific use AND can be used as an all rounder to a higher level.
They show synergy without the specific uses. And simplistic mechanical synergy is added as well.
Mainly the infantry with tanks for normal synergy.
And infantry with artillery for that +1 synergy.

The synergy felt more automatic to me with A&A.

***

questccg wrote:

Cheers!

IMHO, the strategy with MtG vanilla is complex. But to a point that it is easy to learn.

I like the fodder units a lot in this game. That is... if you know how to use them.

My first deck was a basic vanilla ASAP. Where fodder played a role for letting my table grow while blocking the opponents cards. Even in late games, I still used them. I don't remember well, but I think I had 20 land, and 20 fodder cards. 10 middle class and the rest are the big guns or supportive cards with still a lot of damage.

The "pay to win" aspect ruined a lot for this game. If the same is done to RTS games or a board war game. Then this too will be ruined eventually. What I mean is that certain units will truly become "useless" despite all the effort you put in making them of use to begin with.

-Either, the card has to be so unique and useful to begin with. So that "pay to win" can't overrule the cards' effects.
-Or, the card needs help in the form of another "pay to win" card to battle the opponents "pay to win".

Perhaps designing the game in such a way. That the basic deck can even beat a deck with additions.
Should be a goal for the designer, right?

When I compare to my game. Well, details aside.
But I think that my game would fall in both categories.
I could tell how, but I noticed I was going in circles.
A circle means that each unit is useful.
When "pay to win" units are added, certain units actually gain multiple uses.
The middle class is the best example.
They are strong against smaller opponents. But fodder against bigger opponents. It is either meat or fodder.

Mon, 11/26/2018 - 17:24

#14

questccg

Offline

Joined: 04/16/2011

Experience may be the solution

X3M wrote:

The "pay to win" aspect ruined a lot for this game...

That is why I encourage player by allowing them to BUY a couple boosters and play a 2 Player game with the cards they get. It's relatively inexpensive at $15 USD and you can PLAY the game without any "Off-line Deck Construction". That is part of the BROADER appeal of the game and the way its boosters are designed.

As soon as you "take a look" and buy more boosters for Deck Construction it begins to feel like sort of a "pay to win" scenario... Where you will build a 15 card Micro deck with the cards that work best with your own strategy.

This might discourage OTHER players from playing against you... because you are sort of designed your OWN "custom" Micro deck and therefore the other remaining cards while they *can* have another strategy, the opposing player needs to LEARN the game before building his own custom deck. And that's where things sort of "break down".

It's not like I am encouraging "pay to win" BUT if somebody buys more boosters in order to TRY to do Deck Construction, well it's obvious they will learn and understand the game better than their "drop into the hot seat and play a couple games" person, who has never seen or played the game before and WON'T know HOW to do Deck Construction unless they have played games like Magic, Pokemon, Yu-Gi-Oh! which all have different ways of building a deck...

I've already stated that I think I can mimic an Agro Deck and a Control Deck (from my understanding about both of those).

So it will matter how the opponent's Micro deck are built. And that to me doesn't inspire much confidence with newbies and relatively inexperienced gamers.

Mon, 11/26/2018 - 23:49

#15

X3M

Offline

Joined: 10/28/2013

So in other words. "Useles"

So in other words. "Useles" units can still be paid for indirectly. Or given to a new player to give them the feeling of a good start?

Tue, 11/27/2018 - 00:44

#16

questccg

Offline

Joined: 04/16/2011

X3M wrote:So in other words.

X3M wrote:

So in other words. "Useles" units can still be paid for indirectly. Or given to a new player to give them the feeling of a good start?

Not only to a NEW player... Any and all players who only want a "surface" experience. What I mean by this is that they may want to PLAY a 20-30 minute "filler" without any ADDITIONAL commitment... They want a quick and simple game they can play with the cards they get against an opponent (duel).

They don't want to do Deck Construction, all they want is a clear context which simplifies the game experience. And what I mean by this is that they want to play without having to worry about the rules of deck formulation and deck formats which lead to different play styles. For them, it's JUST a duel (or a 4 player arena battle).

It boils down to A GAME instead of some kind of masterful and overly strategic card game where analysis of each card is "important"...

Do you see what I mean?

Tue, 11/27/2018 - 01:19

#17

questccg

Offline

Joined: 04/16/2011

Expanding the interest of NEW players

questccg wrote:

It boils down to A GAME instead of some kind of masterful and overly strategic card game where analysis of each card is "important"...

The point of this is to make an obvious remark which is: a new player may play the game ONCE and become interested in learning more. What I mean is that they may want to design their own 15 card Micro deck...

And then you have another player expanding the "core" experience... At least this is the type of conversion I hope to achieve.

Tue, 11/27/2018 - 03:07

#18

X3M

Offline

Joined: 10/28/2013

How would you prevent certain

How would you prevent certain cards from becomming obsolete? Or did you simply discard the chance of this happening?

I understand that a first game starts "simple". But I feel that these are often obsolete in expanded versions for most games. Expansions often contain better versions of the starting cards as well. It sure would push players to buy more.

Perhaps I want to be fair. I rather have a design keep its usefulness. Even in the "complete" game. Expanding would be more or less a collection. Just like warhammer 40k. Expanding the battlefield and the number of units is something that I love to do.

Tue, 11/27/2018 - 17:11

#19

X3M

Offline

Joined: 10/28/2013

Some designers work with tiers

There are units that are only useful if nothing can counter them for a while.

The concept is simple.

Lets assume that A is the starting unit. And it is an all rounder with a weakness against a certain damage type.

B uses this RPS and beats A.
C uses RPS and beats B, while it is on equal grounds with A.

So we have A=C, B>A and C>B.

Weird huh? It isn't our typical RPS circle. But this is used very common in RTS games.
Lets assume that this little system is "super" balanced.

***

Tiers

The first tier contains A.
The biggest army of A will win.

The second tier contains B. So to get B asap, will make sure that A can be defeated easily. There is a choice here. Rush with A, or tech up to get B as well.

The third tier contains C. It will take a while to get C, and it isn't really that useful against a big army of A. But if the opponent had chosen to tech up to B, you can now build your counters. C is only useful if the opponent is indeed building B. So you only tech up as prevention. And only start building when you noticed that your opponent does indeed have B.

***

There is some variation in tier build up.

A to B is too slow. And B to C is too slow.
Most players spam A. And scout the other player. As soon as one players foolish enough, attempts to tech up to B. The rush happens NOW. This only works in a game where players are skilled enough to scout their opponent.
If there is no scouting, or this has been made impossible of some sorts. Better yet, the armies of A are so big, that the end is yet to be seen. You get a situation where B can be build secretly. In all other cases. B is useless.

A to B is too slow. But B to C is too fast.
If it just so happened to be that one of the players did manage to get units of B. Then it is important that there is a window of time for B to do its job. If the window of time is too short. B still can't do its job. Despite finally being in the game, the time is cut so short that B is again useless.

A to B is too fast. But B to C is too slow.
There are games where the second tier is reached fast enough to have B crawling on the map. The third tier however is made slow to achieve. You simply get the same situation as the first example. However, A is rendered useless here. A and B simply switched sides.

A to B is too fast. And B to C is too fast.
All tiers are available at once. What you get is the end situation. There is almost no build up of strategy. The required army is simple. A and C. A to provoke the opponent in getting B. C to get rid of that B.
In other words. All players only use A and C. B is once again, useless here.
I might add, since C and A are equal in RPS. C is the better spam choice. It depends on other game mechanics if A is being build. I know of some where building A and C is twice as fast as only C. So, only those games will have 2/3th of the game being of use.

Tue, 11/27/2018 - 18:10

#20

questccg

Offline

Joined: 04/16/2011

Scenario-Based type of game

X3M wrote:

How would you prevent certain cards from becomming obsolete? Or did you simply discard the chance of this happening?

Well in my booster example, where nobody is building their own Micro decks and everyone is using a booster given to them, well nothing is obsolete because you do the best that you can with the Micro deck that has been given to you.

X3M wrote:

Yes starting "scenarios" in an RTS are to LEARN how to play the game. So in your case, you could have like 3 missions which TEACH how the game is played. Maybe a "capture the flag", a "defend the base" and "beat your opponent". The two (2) first ones are self-explanatory, the teach how to attack and defend from the enemy. The third (3rd) scenario ... is a bit of a "free-for-all" where it pits two groups of armies and the goal is to be the survivor. Again a teaching scenario which is a bit "broader" than the two earlier ones.

X3M wrote:

If you design it be "scenario" some can be for TEACHING, which is important to *NEW* players because it reduces the need for "coaching" or "quarterbacking". If newbies play those scenarios, they too would learn a lot about how the game is to be played. And if each scenario used different UNITS too... Well that would be like the "Icing-on-the-cake" because the new players would understand which units to use for defending and which ones to use for attacking, etc.

Of course expansion is good too. But I think the primary goal is to have a "fair" game and I think tutorial scenarios will help achieve that purpose. Let me know what you think!

Cheers.

Tue, 11/27/2018 - 20:01

#21

questccg

Offline

Joined: 04/16/2011

Some general (Pun intended) ideas

X3M wrote:

Tiers

Okay so let's go with my "scenario" idea and assume that we are indeed going to play the three (3) Scenarios that I had outlines in the previous comment.

1. Capture the flag

This is an ATTACK on some point on the map heavily defended by Player #2. Player #1 goal is to defeat this army and "capture the flag". Player #2 could start with a high mix of "B" and "A" in addition have a couple "C" units.

Player #1 can only produce "A" or "B" units. So Player #2 has a bit of an advantage because he has a "limited" supply of "C" units (which are more effective against the "B" troops).

Given a quantity of "fixed" resources, Player #1 can build "?" armies to attack in several waves to TRY to capture the flag.

So you see HOW I set this up??? Player #1 (the attacker) CANNOT produce "C" units. And therefore needs to worry about his "B" units being defeated by the opponent (Player #2).

2. Defend the base

In this case Player #1 is the defender. What he must do is protect the base from being destroyed. So the "base" has a HP indicator to determine how many more hits (or attacks) it can take before being destroyed.

Player #2 has only unit "A" and "B" this time. This time Player #1 has all three (3) units with heavy "A" and "B" and some "C" to combat more effectively against the Player #2 "B" units.

Again Player #1 has limited resources and there is a Sand Timer of 1:00 that allows Player #1 to build up as many units he feels necessary to stave off the the attacks done by Player #2.

Player #2 (in this scenario) is given a "max quantity" of troops per "attack wave". So if it's like 50 unit points for Wave #1, 75 unit points for Wave #2 and 100 unit points for Wave #3... This kind of simulates the process of timings and there is a slight advantage for Player #1 ... but it means that at times, Player #2 might win too...

3. Defeat your opponent

In this scenario BOTH sides are given "limited" resources and can BUILD whatever units they feel necessary. Again I would go with the Waves ... and make like three (3) attacks and the winner is the one left with troops on the ground.

Both players can produce units "A", "B" or "C" using the resources available to them. Again maybe have Wave "max army points" and allow players to build around those limits (for both sides).

Anyhow I think you get the "scenario" concept. It's not really a "free-for-all", they are especially "crafted" (Haha ... pun intended) to offer players a chance to LEARN the game and have more experience with the RTS overall.

If I were to design an RTS board game (or wargame), I would focus on scenarios to TEACHING and then go into the "free-for-all" but have things like "Escort a Caravan from point A to point B" or "Perform an air raid on an enemy airport", etc. Things like that. Not just plain vanilla battles on an open board. Again sometimes with rules, other times more relaxed.

Hope this helps in some way to visualize the problem from a "different" angle. Cheers!

Tue, 11/27/2018 - 20:11

#22

questccg

Offline

Joined: 04/16/2011

What I think...

Is that you've omitted the "limitation" on resources and the Wave Points (maximum number of troops in terms of some points). Like in Starcraft, you need to build Food Silos to FEED troops. That puts a limit on the total amount of troops (units) you can build. PLUS each unit costs resources too. So you have a couple ways of limiting the efficiency of the armies given the various restrictions imposed by a "scenario".

Another example you can look at is "Heroscape".

In Heroscape, your armies are built by using a POINT System. Like for example, you have 500 unit points and you can draft whatever units you like up to a MAXIMUM of 500 points (as per this example). Here is a URL/LINK to Heroscape reviewed by Tom Vasal from The Dice Tower:

https://youtu.be/kpyJSKtPmnE?t=100

I've specified the TIME parameter which talks about the point system...

That will give you more ideas into how you can further RESTRICT or force some kind of OPTIMIZATION of units either in Waves or based on resources, etc.

Cheers!

Tue, 11/27/2018 - 20:46

#23

questccg

Offline

Joined: 04/16/2011

Some more on some of the proposed scenarios

1. Escort a Caravan from point A to point B.

The rules could be that a Nuclear Weapon is hidden away on one of four (4) trucks in a caravan. Since you do not know WHICH truck in the caravan is actually carrying the Nuke, you must destroy all the trucks in the caravan.

However the trucks also move from point A to point B. And if the caravan reaches point B and is not completely destroyed. The Nuke gets delivered and the Player playing the caravan wins.

2. Perform an air raid on an enemy airport.

In this scenario, there could be several airplanes at the airport and again, the player performing the raid doesn't know on which plane the foreign dictator is going to take off and flee...

Player #1 must destroy all of the planes in order to ensure that the foreign dictator gets defeated such that he cannot spread more hostility and propaganda.

Player #2 wins if Player #1 armies are defeated and there is at least one remaining airplane that may be capable of flying away.

Yes I realize the scenarios are "similar"... But these are just EXAMPLES. I'm sure if you start getting set into the "scenario"-Mode, you'll come up with your own "adventures" that the players can play.

I just wanted to share some ideas which illustrate the "scenario" concept.

Cheers!

Tue, 11/27/2018 - 22:55

#24

larienna

Offline

Joined: 07/28/2008

I did not have the time to

I did not have the time to read everything, here are my 2 cents.

Quote:

The other innovative idea is the "Spell" cards. There are five (5) RANDOM Spells per booster. You get whatever you luck out with...

For one of my card game idea, I bound spells and monsters together becaus the utility value of a spell was always inferior to a creature that could just remain in play for a longer time.

Now you have more choice, use a card as a spell or as a creature.

Quote:

IMHO, the strategy with MtG vanilla is complex. But to a point that it is easy to learn.

I don't want to start a debate about MTG, but the strategy lies in deck construction. Playing the game is almost automatic and defined by the stacking of the cards.

In duel masters, each creature was a land, so again you had a choice to sacrifice strong creatures as mana to summon weak creatures fast, or sacrifice a lot of weak creatures to eventually get out your strong creature.

If your game allows it you could use such mechanism where you decide if you want to summon some creatures now, or wait to summon something stronger. So you end up in some sort of evaluation of risks.

I had a similar mechanism in my war game idea when players can wait an additional turn to get a stronger unit instead of getting a weaker unit now. It depends on the situation.

Quote:

How would you prevent certain cards from becomming obsolete? Or did you simply discard the chance of this happening?

Some say that you cannot avoid the power curve. I say that if you pay for what you get (mana cost), you could design a game without a curve.

Instead of increasing the power curve, I would suggest increasing complexity. MTG used that, having card very complex to use, but in the end if used in the right situation could be more powerful than original cards.

Still, a game with no expandability has no powercurve issues.

Tue, 11/27/2018 - 23:09

#25

questccg

Offline

Joined: 04/16/2011

Spells/Monsters

larienna wrote:

...For one of my card game idea, I bound spells and monsters together becaus the utility value of a spell was always inferior to a creature that could just remain in play for a longer time.

Now you have more choice, use a card as a spell or as a creature...

Well I do have a "Powerword" called "Memorize ?" where "?" is the Mana cost required to put a Spell card back into your hand.

True that Monsters have more longevity, you will have Spells that allow you to "Banish" a unit in the area to the player's Exile. So some reactive spells which can help dealing with "too difficult" Monsters.

As I have already explained, the game spans a total of 55 Mana. Later turns may have more Mana available to the players... But as I've discussed in most instances, it's probably better to have "middle" game units rather than "late-end" game units since they are more useful (in general terms — I'm not talking about specific cards/units).

In a way, the general "design theory" is to "create rules". From those "rules" you draft cards that conform to those rules. Then at some point in time, create cards that "break" the rules...

Right now I have 15 Keywords and 15 Powerwords. As the game progresses, maybe I can come up with NEW ones! Obviously there is a theoretical limit as to the assets in the game which Keywords/Powerwords can affect.

But we'll see... Right now it's focusing on the "First Edition" of the game!

Tue, 11/27/2018 - 23:28

#26

questccg

Offline

Joined: 04/16/2011

How to wait to summon a Monster

larienna wrote:

...In duel masters, each creature was a land, so again you had a choice to sacrifice strong creatures as mana to summon weak creatures fast, or sacrifice a lot of weak creatures to eventually get out your strong creature.

If your game allows it you could use such mechanism where you decide if you want to summon some creatures now, or wait to summon something stronger. So you end up in some sort of evaluation of risks.

Well that's the point of the Player's Hand. It is limited to eight (8) cards unless a spell such "Planar Summoning" which grants a +1 to your hand limit and has a the "Enchant" Keyword (The spell may be used as a permanent ability for one unit). Once that Monster is defeated BOTH cards go into Exile.

But you probably get the idea...

Note: So the idea is that "Planar Summoning" is an "Enchantment" ("Enchant" Keyword) and becomes a semi-permanent card (or while the Monster is in play). So you'd want a Beefy Monster with high Defensive capabilities to attach this Spell to it...

There are other abilities, like the Powerword "Memorize ?" which states that a Spell may be placed back into your hand (instead of being Exiled) where "?" is the amount of Mana required to perform this action...

Or the Keyword "Dispel" which means that the unit is impervious to Spells and cannot be affected by them...

I think I have some QUALITY ideas out there in the realm of my abilities... But it's a matter of testing them all out. Which ones are cool and which ones don't work so well during Playtesting!

Wed, 11/28/2018 - 05:28

#27

X3M

Offline

Joined: 10/28/2013

Regarding the power curve

There are 2 aspects that have influence on the power curve.

- Bigger is better, in practise that is.
I already posted about this.
- Range and Speed interactions.

These 2 have a big influence on the power curve.
And simply using math isn't always the solution.

Adjusting the stats is the way to go for RTS games.
For board games, we are in luck.

I added the bonus rule for the first problem.
For the second problem, terrain influence created a yes and no situation.
Sure, long ranged is more effective. And the high speed corrects this for a big part, but not all.
Terrain influence makes it so that long range is only partly useful. The same effects can also influence speed.

The effect ranges from 0 to 100 percent. So there is a part that will always create a counter effect to make the weapon to weak.

My special weapons that ignore terrain are weaker than normal weapons. But stronger than the same when the terrain is indeed present. In other words, the weapon is weaker than a normal weapon. But terrain will now have no effect on the special weapons.

I'll see if I can respond more on the posts above when done with my daytime job.

Wed, 11/28/2018 - 11:05

#28

X3M

Offline

Joined: 10/28/2013

Reply to #20, #21 and #22

Tutorial missions are THE BEST option to show the usefulness of a certain unit. The entire mission could be designed around this one unit.

And adding more missions where choices are obvious for a few of all units. Example, the enemy is weaker by sea. Will the player choose slow air, fast air or sea units? It depends on what lays deeper. And it can even be a choice that doesn't matter at all.

Regarding the tutorial missions where you learn the game itself. You get your very basic attack infantry. These are often not designed to make the best use of that attack infantry. In contrary, there are plenty of games where the most basic unit becomes obsolete for the major part of the game.

Rifle Infantry in C&C see their use declining. Especially the mid section of the game. If later on, attacking with mass tanks is the only option. Even against the overkill weapon the Obelisk, rifle infantry are not used. While this is actually their moment of being usefull again.

So far, I have only seen a few games where the very first unit remains useful for the entire game. The most famous examples are the Marine, Zergling and Zealot from SC/BW.
To a lesser extend (in my experience) the rifle men squad from C&C3.

The opposite can happen too. Not seeing the usefulness since other parts of the game aren't designed that way.

A prime, tier linked, example would be the footman/grunt in warcraft 2. Believe it or not, but these are actually on equal grounds with their higher tier counter parts, IF players are limited in wood.

Low on wood maps are very, very rare. Since other stuff are also depending on wood. It is almost a shame that this mission has not been added to the game.

Also funny to do is to change the 600 gold for the footman/grunt, into 450 gold with 50 wood, or even 300 gold with 100 wood. The gameplay changes a lot, but the fairness remains exactly the same.

***

Regarding the supply system.

Supply is somewhat a one time only payment. To be able to make more units. If you play like having to build up just 1 army that is going to end the game. This supply goes entirely in your army.

If there is a limit on the game. Then the supply also serves for balancing. That is, if the units cost different supply.

It is a grey area I think.

Warcraft 2:
Supply is given by farms. You get 4 per farm.
A farm costs 500 gold and 250 wood. This is 1250 "gold" in total. So one supply is 312,5 gold.
A grunt that normally costs 600, would now be 900 if you think about it.
An ogre that costs "1100", would now be 1400.
This is one of the reasons why players rather use the ogre. The supply is relatively low for ogre's. 50% versus 27%.

If you would make a game where the player has plenty of supply. (Also, no magic for the ogre) Then a player could choose to go for grunts instead.

In Starcraft and Warcraft 3, the supply is different for units. I only know Starcraft by head. Here the supply depot/overlord/pylon costs 100 and gives 8 supply.
This is 12,5 supply per supply point. A battlecruiser needs 6, so this is 75 minerals for the battlecruiser.
Still, it is relatively low for the battlecruiser, than for a marine. 6,5% versus 25% more costly for the first. Which is even more ridiculous than Warcraft 2.

Wed, 11/28/2018 - 13:32

#29

larienna

Offline

Joined: 07/28/2008

If your unit system is not

If your unit system is not too much rock paper scisor-ish, you could define in a scenario which units are available to produce.

This way it creates a subset of units that the player needs to work with for this mission. This technique has been used in the NES game conflict.

The only issue is that you need a good amount of units and alternative especially if there are some RPS system.

For example, if a scenario has no fighter planes, well, I'll need to find other methods to hunt air crafts.

Thu, 11/29/2018 - 14:36

#30

X3M

Offline

Joined: 10/28/2013

I like that idea

larienna wrote:

If your unit system is not too much rock paper scisor-ish, you could define in a scenario which units are available to produce.

This way it creates a subset of units that the player needs to work with for this mission. This technique has been used in the NES game conflict.

The only issue is that you need a good amount of units and alternative especially if there are some RPS system.

For example, if a scenario has no fighter planes, well, I'll need to find other methods to hunt air crafts.

This has been used in other RTS as well. And I like the gaps in ones arsenal in later missions. It sure adds to variation in the game.

Some examples that come to mind:

1
In Starcraft, there is a mission where the Stargate's can't summon air units. You have to combat on the ground. I don't know which mission it was though. But I loved that mission.

2
In Tiberium Sun, there is a mission where you are hit with an Ion Storm. This causes your HQ to crash. Any air units or hoover is disabled. But so are those of the enemy. The enemy attacks with artillery non stop. I remember, because I hated it. Lets just say, the RPS was a bit broken here.

3
In AoW3, there is a mission where you are ordered to primarily build sea units. Well, if you upgrade them enough, you don't need to build sea units. And you simply build land any way. But the idea is there for players who play the missions for a first time.

I have the feeling these kind of missions are relatively rare.

Maybe because most RTS games have a sharp RPS system without multiple choices for the same problem.

Most RTS games have 1 type of armor with 1 type of weapon.
While I use this as well, primarily for my game. I also allow for the craziest all rounders.

There are games out there that have units have 2 types of weapons. AoW3 seems to be one of those games, where the feeling of this effect is higher than other games.

Of course, Starcraft is amongst them. This in the form of weak RPS effects.

***

Talking about use-less units. I still yearn for a certain magic formula that sort of deals with the meat and support units being useless in the general type of RTS.

Sure I have named the 4 situations. And I have adjusted the number of units in combination with their amount of damage. The health always remained the same. In the background, the unit price changed a lot.

But what would happen if I where to keep the amount of units the same. In other words, the unit price will not change at all when meddling with the other statistics. So we only could change damage and health instead?
I think, that would also give pretty good numbers to work with. But I wonder how much things change when observing just 1 unit. All the way up to "infinite".

I have a couple of problems here:
- The health/damage ratio might pose a problem. I use 3/1, which means that 1 damage costs as much as 3 health. Most games have 6, 7 or 8 as answer. These ratio's are the medium units. Anything higher than the medium in the list, is meat. Anything lower is support.
- What are the logical steps of meat and support? In other words, when viewing health costs:damage costs, should these be defined by logical factors? Example: 1:1 is the start. 1:0 and 0:1 are the extremes. 2:1 and 1:2 are thirds. 1:3 and 3:1 are quarters. 1:4, 2:3, 3:2 and 4:1 are fifths. Etc.
Extra - The health/damage is not to be confused with the meat and support factors. A H/D ratio of 3 means that a medium unit has 3 health and 1 damage. A 2 health and 1.5 damage unit is actually a support unit with a factor of 2:4.5, yikes, that is an 1:2.25.

The magic formula too, depends on the game mechanics. But I rather pretend there is NO blocking. You can target anything with anything. That is the rule. The 4 given situations still apply here though.

My search continuous.

***

What do I know so far?
I am.... going to be very.... mathematical here.
Technical? Ok, technical it is then.

The most common formula used for the basis of a RTS is:

100%(cost)=%health+%damage

That's it!!! That is what Westwood started with. That is what Blizzard started with too. Any other RTS game starts with this. But after this, there is manual balancing. And no one seems to understand why this is needed.

I for one, discovered when designing my board game a couple of years ago. That game mechanics, are the primary cause. Not all RTS use the same game mechanics. And with that I mean;
- the usage of terrain
- how do units collide
- player skill divided by game speed
- size and or limits of forces allowed
- resource management, with rate, maximums,
etc. etc. and so on.

Back to my basic formula...erm, understanding

%health>%damage are the meat units
%health<%damage are the support units

And a combination of those 2 beats a combination of medium units where %health=%damage and the meat kindly protect the support.

Logically speaking, the total damage just 1 unit could do is:
damage points(%)=%health*%damage

It creates a nice parabolic.
With 50%*50%=25% being the top.

Yeahhh,.. that's right. I consider % as a decimal number. It helped me configuring the value of chemical synthesis. A percentage of a percentage.

Seeing as how the number of units might only change the damage points given by just one at first glance. Even I had to see through that illusion. The health indicate the speed of death. And this changes regarding on the situation.

So, what did we have again?

X3M wrote:

- Spotting the weakness
- Having to face Focus/Sniping
- Being able to do Micro
- Chaos

It seems that the first one doesn't even need the %health in the formula.

Spotting the weakness
When successful:
damage points(%)=%damage

When a sacrifice is made:
damage points(%)=%health*%damage

Ah... there it is... anyway. What is next?

Having to face Focus/Sniping
damage points(%)=%health*%damage*(n^2+n)*0.5
In which n is a constant. And so is (n^2+n)*0.5
So we keep our:
damage points(%)=%health*%damage

Did I make any thought experiment mistakes here?
I wonder?
But including the n adjustment will show how far solely meat and support units can go against normal units. This when one of the 2 armies has a different n.

Being able to do Micro
This is the one where the health/damage ratio is of great influence. I will call this ratio X.

When facing Focus/Sniping, this ratio X is 1.

X-1 is where we use n^2. Example, if X=3, we have 2 times n^2.
And we always have 1 time where we use (n^2+n)*0.5
That would be added up to the total score.

damage points(%)=
%health*%damage*(n^2+n)*0.5
+%health*%damage*(X-1)*n^2

n is still a constant though, but it shifts left and right. Since the adjustment is different.

How is %health influenced by X?
I could link them for better formula's.

%health of 50% should be equal to X.
So, does that mean that only 25% is 0.5*X?

I guess, we get:

(2*%health*X)-1 where we use n^2, given that negative numbers are removed.
I could now allow for overkill events too? (In my world that means D>H in absolute numbers) Yeah, how about F!@# splash damage :D. Overkill rules! Got to test that Obelisk of Light.

Although, besides of a continuous system. I should also observe absolute designs. Where 3 health can only be replaced by round numbers, in this case, 6, 5, 2, 1 and 0.

Ehm...

damage points(%)=
1*%damage*(n^2+n)*0.5
+((2*%health*X)-1)*%damage*(X-1)*n^2

Where (2*%health*X)-1 can be a nice rounded upwards number if you will.

Chaos
Seeing as how this is some sort of mix of all the above.
Is this the holy grail that I seek?
Do I find my religion in whatever is hiding here from my vision?
I seek enlightenment in the Dark Chaos.
Maybe that Obelisk of Light might help.

Why in War Games/RTS, certain units are "use(-)less"

User login

Navigation

Apr 25 2024

Apr 24 2024

Apr 20 2024

Apr 18 2024

Apr 16 2024

Apr 15 2024

Apr 13 2024

Apr 12 2024

Apr 9 2024

Apr 6 2024

Apr 4 2024

Apr 1 2024

Mar 28 2024

Mar 21 2024

Mar 20 2024

Mar 19 2024

Mar 13 2024

Mar 8 2024

Mar 5 2024

Mar 4 2024

	TradeWorlds — Smuggler's Run (7) by questccg
	Single Item Shipping at The Game Crafter (0) by The Game Crafter